ISSN 1977-8449
Industrial waste water treatment
– pressures on Europe's environment
Industrial waste water treatment
– pressures on Europe's environment
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report.
Copyright notice
© European Environment Agency, 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 ISBN 978-92-9480-054-1
ISSN 1977-8449 doi:10.2800/496223
European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries
Contents
Acknowledgements ... 5
Key messages and recommendations ... 6
Executive summary ... 9
1 Introduction ... 10
1.1 Content and objectives of this report ...10
1.2 Understanding of industry and scope of activities analysed in this report...10
1.3 The relevance of industry in the context of the water cycle ...11
1.4 European policy landscape for industrial waste waters ...13
1.5 Types of industrial waste water ...16
1.6 Key water pollutants and their significance ...16
1.7 Industrial sites and treatment infrastructure ...18
1.8 Data sources ...20
1.9 General approach to the assessment ...21
2 Pressures from industry on Europe's treatment infrastructure and water bodies...23
2.1 The interface between industrial indirect releases and waste water treatment...23
2.2 Assessing direct and indirect releases from industry and urban waste water treatment plants...26
3 Information gaps and limitations ... 53
3.1 The design of the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register...53
3.2 Data quality issues in European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register reporting....54
3.3 The design of the Industrial Emissions Directive and best available techniques reference documents...55
3.4 Limitations of water data reporting ...55
4 Recommendations on data reporting ... 56
4.1 Horizontal improvements (streamlining) ...56
4.2 Specific recommendations for European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive reporting...57
4
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
Glossary of terms ... 58
List of abbreviations ... 59
References ... 60
Annex 1 Sector mapping of industry ... 63
Annex 2 Eco-toxicity factors according to the USEtox model ... 64
Annex 3 Pressures from industrial waste water on urban waste water treatment
plants, based on effluent typology ... 66
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by the European Environment Agency. The authors of the report were Marthe Granger, Ian Marnane and Daniel Martin-Montalvo Alvarez.
The report is largely based on a technical contribution led by Trinomics and Ricardo Energy & Environment.
Ben Grebot, Natalia Anderson, Alfredo López Carretero, James Sykes, Gratsiela Madzharova and Hetty Menadue are the experts behind that work.
The EEA project manager for this report was Marthe Granger.
The EEA would like to recognise the contributions from experts from the EEA member countries in the Eionet National Reference Centre on Industrial Pollution who provided data and reviewed
this report. The project manager would like to thank Marcin Wisniewski and Nele Rosenstock (European Commission, Directorate General for the Environment) for their contributions and Martin Adams, Caroline Whalley, Bastian Zeiger and Nihat Zal (all EEA) for their involvement in framing the report and improving its messages.
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
6Key messages and recommendations
1. In 2016, more than 34 000 facilities reported data to the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR); however, only a relatively small fraction of these reported emissions to water:
around 3 600 facilities, equivalent to 10 % (2 500 facilities from industry and around 1 100 Urban waste water treatment plants (UWWTPs)). The presence of pollutant reporting thresholds in the E-PRTR process means that other facilities that have pollutant releases below these thresholds do not have to report data; hence, 3 600 represents only those facilities with discharges above the threshold levels.
2. Based on national assessments, in most countries industrial point sources of pollution are identified as a relatively small source of pressure. The data suggest that industrial point sources not regulated by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) may exert greater pressure on the quality of water than the larger installations covered by the IED. This suggests that the IED regulatory process is effective in controlling industrial pollution but that measures to control pollution from smaller industry may be less effective.
3. Industrial sectors that include large-scale activities tend to have a higher proportion of direct releases to water. This is consistent with data for the pulp and paper (82 %), iron and steel (81 %), energy supply (86 %), non-ferrous metals (76 %) and chemicals (49 %) sectors. This would require on-site capacity to treat the waste waters before their release.
4. Those industrial sectors with generally smaller scale installations, e.g. other manufacturing, and food and drink production, tend to report higher proportions of releases to the sewer system (i.e. indirect releases) than direct releases to water. Some of these effluents (e.g. from food and drink production) are similar in character to domestic-type effluents, which may explain why the off-site treatment pathway is an easier option for these sectors.
5. According to E-PRTR data, direct emissions
(in mass) to water from industry for most pollutants
have slightly decreased in recent years and, in the meantime, transfers from industry towards UWWTPs have marginally increased (except for heavy metals).
6. In terms of eco-toxicity, the largest pressure from industrial direct releases to water can be observed where there are large-scale, or clusters of, thermal power plants, coke ovens or chemical manufacturing plants.
7. Analysis of the eco-toxic loading related to different pollutant groups over the period 2008-2016 indicates that:
• In terms of eco-toxicity, as would be expected, UWWTPs are the biggest contributor of direct releases to water for each of the pollutant groups. Within industry, chemicals and energy supply are always significant contributors to the eco-toxicity of direct releases to water and to indirect releases to UWWTPs as well.
• The eco-toxic loading due to direct releases from industry has clearly decreased for heavy metals (mainly originating from metal processing activities), and it has also decreased for chlorinated organic substances and other organic substances.
• Regarding indirect releases, the eco-toxic loading to UWWTPs has decreased for heavy metals, has remained relatively constant for other organic substances and has no clear trend for chlorinated organic substances.
• Over the same period the toxic loading due to direct releases to water from UWWTPs has increased for heavy metals, which suggests that other sources not regulated under the IED are impacting on heavy metals in UWWTP releases. The toxic loading has decreased for chlorinated organic substances and other organic substances.
Some limitations due to information gaps have been identified and should be addressed
Recommendations
The current scope of the E-PRTR does not capture all industrial emissions to water.
Thresholds
- The pollutants covered by the E-PRTR have not changed since the regulation was adopted in 2006. Some substances have become less relevant than other emerging pollutants identified since then. Therefore, reconsidering the scope of substances covered is essential to ensure the mechanism remains fit for purpose.
Scope of activities
- The industrial activities covered by the E-PRTR and the IED are not fully aligned.
Neither is there an exact alignment in definitions between E-PRTR 'facilities' and IED 'installations'. Aligning the activities and reviewing the pollutant reporting thresholds would increase the scope of industrial sites reporting to the E-PRTR and would increase the number of potential reporters from the current (approximate) 34 000.
- Reporting to E-PRTR is required only for UWWTPs for greater than 100 000 population equivalent (p.e.). Reducing this capacity threshold would provide a more complete understanding of the significance of discharges from UWWTPs.
To go further …
Emissions from industrial facilities currently not regulated under the IED represent a significant data gap. Given that aggregated EU data sources do not provide relevant emission data, a dedicated study examining this issue could be valuable to better understand the full extent of pressures on UWWTPs. To narrow the scope of an extensive data collection exercise that may be required for such a project, the focus could be on Member States' reporting on non-IED industrial plants that exert a significant pressure on their water bodies and on industrial sectors with probably the highest emissions to water.
The E-PRTR does not collect any information on the associated UWWTPs that receive indirect emissions from an industrial site.
Some of the data reported on a voluntary basis under the UWWTD, such as design capacity, entering load, level of treatment, discharging area, could be reported to a future mandatory EU Registry on Industrial Sites.
The EU Registry on Industrial Sites is a reporting mechanism that will compile information on industrial entities regulated by several pieces of EU law in a single system (including E-PRTR and IED). This system will be in place from 2019 with reference to the reporting year 2017 and will receive updates every year thereafter (whereas the UWWTD requires reporting every 2 years).
Such data would allow a more detailed assessment of the pressure caused by industrial emissions, for example:
• Determining whether indirect releases have an appropriate level of treatment at the receiving UWWTP.
• Assessing whether specific industrial pollutant loadings are reflected in the releases from the receiving UWWTPs and thus assessing the potential pressure of indirect emissions on receiving waters (information submitted by reporting countries as part of their river basin management plans (RBMPs) under the WFD indicates that discharges from UWWTPs are considered a significant pressure in a number of countries. However, the contribution of industrial effluents to the reported UWWTP pressures cannot be determined based on available EU-level data).
• Identifying whether the receiving treatment plants are operating within their design capacity.
Comparison of data on pollutants released from industry with data on the status of the water bodies is not possible because of variations in the approach taken to assessing the status of surface water bodies in the different Member States (in modelling, monitoring and extrapolating data). These issues need to be addressed in order to have consistent and comparable EU-wide data on industrial emissions and the status of water bodies.
A more consistent approach to assessing ecological and chemical status and the origins of their failure at European level is needed to comply with the requirements of the WFD, as well as reporting at a more detailed level.
8
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
Some limitations due to information gaps have been identified and should be addressed
Recommendations
There is a discrepancy between the numbers of plants > 100 000 population equivalent (p.e.) being reported under the E-PRTR and the UWWTD, with a lower number of plants being reported under the E-PRTR.
The data on UWWTPs, as reported under the UWWTD, are incomplete for some reporting countries.
A comprehensive and reliable data set would provide a stronger basis for comparison with release data from the E-PRTR or other data sources.
The reliability of data on water releases reported to the E-PRTR and the UWWTD needs to be improved. This needs to be addressed through a combination of improved data checks and improved guidance to reporters.
The UWWTD regulatory process tends to focus on pollutants that are related to domestic type effluents, and it only specifically sets limits for a limited number of pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids.
As part of the ongoing evaluation of EU water policy, it would be useful to consider Article 11 of the UWWTD (relating to management of industrial effluents) and how its requirements may be better enforced and its implementation may be better monitored. In order to better deal with industrial effluent loadings to UWWTPs, there may be merit in providing more focused requirements for managing such effluents, including defining the scope of the pollutants that should be considered and setting emission limits and/or performance standards (e.g. removal efficiency) for a broader range of pollutants.
Europe's water is a resource under pressure. Economic activities, population growth and urbanisation all affect the quality of European freshwaters. Water sustains ecosystems and is a crucial resource for our societies.
The collection and treatment of waste waters is one key element in the water cycle that limits these pressures and one in which European action has fostered an ambitious level of protection across Member States.
Despite these efforts, water bodies in the EU remain under pressure from pollution sources. On a European scale, only around 40 % of the surface water bodies are in good ecological status and 38 % of surface water bodies are in good chemical status.
Industrial releases to water is one element that exerts pressure on European waters, alongside discharges of pollutants from urban waste water treatment. This report examines the significance of industrial emissions through direct and also indirect releases (1) to water and the interaction between industrial releases and Europe's urban waste water collection and treatment facilities.
Much of the analysis in this report is based on data on releases from industry and urban waste water treatment plants (UWWTPs) to surface waters as reported to the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), which collects national information on environmental releases and transfers from large industrial activities across the EU. Other data sets are also used, including data on the status
of European water bodies as collected under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), and information on UWWTPs as collected under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD). The broad approach taken to assessing these data is outlined below:
• Substances covered by the E-PRTR are grouped into categories to allow more coherent analysis (chlorinated organic substances, heavy metals, inorganic substances and other organic substances).
• For each pollutant group, information is presented on the magnitude of and trends in direct and indirect releases from industrial facilities.
• To better compare the environmental significance of releases, the reported emissions are then assessed further in terms of their eco-toxicity.
• The assessment also considers the potential impact of industrial emissions on UWWTP performance and how this relationship can be identified based on available EU-level data.
In addition, based on the findings of the assessment and the analysis of available relevant data sets, gaps in the data sets were identified which, if filled, would allow a more complete and thorough analysis of the impacts of industrial waste water emissions on the receiving environment.
Executive summary
(1) In this assessment, indirect industrial releases refer to industrial releases that are discharged into a sewer system and receive further treatment, usually at an urban waste water treatment plant (UWWTP).
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
101.1 Content and objectives of this report
This report examines the influence of industrial waste waters within the water cycle in Europe, with the aim of better understanding recent trends and the extent of the environmental pressure exerted by industrial waste waters. The report also analyses the different regulatory regimes that control and influence industrial waste water releases and assesses the efficacy of the reporting mechanisms that are available to gather information and data on releases and on their impacts on the receiving environment.
Industrial waste water in Europe is an environmental pressure even if these waters are, in some cases, collected by a local sewer system, treated in an urban waste water treatment plant (UWWTP) and subsequently released to the environment. There are also cases, however, in which these waters are directly released to a water body, generally after treatment at the industrial facility where the waste water is generated. This report analyses both settings, as they are significantly distinct.
Thus, a series of specific questions are addressed:
1. What are the pressures that industrial waste waters place on the treatment infrastructure and the environment?
2. Can any potential impacts on the environment be identified?
3. Are UWWTPs able to respond to the challenges that industrial waste water generates in their operation?
4. Are relevant EU policies adequate to offer an ambitious level of protection of the environment?
While analysing these aspects, it became apparent that the data available are a significant limitation to providing robust evidence and drawing conclusions.
Therefore, identifying such information gaps also developed as a key objective of this report. The
1 Introduction
limitations identified when using the available data sources are also the main reason why this report covers just the Member States of the European Union (EU-28).
The report is structured in the following way:
• Chapter 1 provides an introduction to and a context to the study.
• Chapter 2 compiles the main findings of the analysis.
• Chapter 3 includes considerations on the information gaps and areas for strengthening regulatory mechanisms on the topic.
• Chapter 4 includes recommendations for improving the data collection to enhance the knowledge base.
1.2 Understanding of industry and scope of activities analysed in this report
Europe hosts a large and diverse range of economic activities. The focus of this report is industry, as defined by the following activities:
1. Manufacturing industry: activities involving the fabrication, processing or preparation of products from raw materials and commodities. In this report, a set of manufacturing industries were considered, based on the classification of industrial activities within the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) (2):
i. iron and steel;
ii. non-ferrous metals;
iii. non-metallic minerals;
iv. chemicals;
v. pulp and paper and wood;
(2) The E-PRTR is discussed in further detail in Section 1.8.
vi. food and drink;
vii. other manufacturing activities (e.g. processing of metals, tanning of hides).
It has to be noted that the following sectors are not included in the definition we chose of industry:
construction, mining and quarrying, management of waste, aquaculture or intensive livestock production.
2. Energy supply: activities that transform a primary energy source into a ready-to-use energy form such as electricity or heat. This includes power plants, district heating plants and refineries.
For the remainder of this report the term 'industry' is used to refer to the activities referenced in points 1 and 2 above. The specific activity mapping used for this report can be found in Annex 1 Sector mapping of industry, which details the aggregation applied within E-PRTR sectors and sub-sectors.
A significant part of industrial waste water is released to the environment only after being collected by the sewer system and treated in UWWTPs. Therefore, this report also considers UWWTPs within the scope of its analysis (but not within its definition of 'industry').
Last, data are available only for point source emitters, which is why diffuse sources of emissions could not be considered in this analysis.
1.3 The relevance of industry in the context of the water cycle
Industry is a highly relevant stakeholder regarding pressure on water media from both a quantitative and qualitative point of view. The uptake of water by industry in Europe is about 54 % of the total uptake for human activities (FAO, 2016). The physicochemical quality of these waters when turned into waste waters is, in most cases, substantially degraded, and therefore the waste waters require treatment before being returned to the environment.
Figure 1.1 presents a simplified overview of water uptake and subsequent waste water pathways back to the environment. The effluents from certain industries may require treatment that is not commonly available in UWWTPs and may therefore be treated on-site before direct release to water (scenario A in Figure 1.1). Some industrial units, such as cooling systems, generate waste water streams with low pollutant content that can be directly released into receiving waters without treatment (scenario B).
Finally, some industrial installations generate effluent that cannot be directly released to surface water (or the operator choses not to treat it on site) and thus is transferred off site for treatment at an UWWTP or independently operated waste water treatment plant (scenario C), the so-called indirect releases.
The treatment of industrial waste water at an UWWTP is typically a commercial arrangement between the Figure 1.1 Simplified waste water treatment cycle
Freshwater catchment
On-site industrial waste water treatment plant
A
Direct release Industrial plant
B
Direct release without treatment
Industrial
plant Industrial
plant Drinking water
treatment
Urban waste water treatment plant
C
Urban agglomeration
Indirect release Direct release from UWWTP
Independently operated waste water treatment plant
Indirect release
Source: EEA.
12
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
industry that generates the waste water and theUWWTP operator that treats it. This can be complex but a charge is normally imposed based on the quantity of waste water and its constituent pollutants.
The UWWTP operator will also typically restrict, or even, prohibit the receipt of pollutants that might comprise operation of the UWWTP e.g. pollutants that cannot be treated, hamper the treatment process or impinge on sludge quality.
The quantitative relevance of industry in the water cycle can be measured using two metrics, namely water consumption and water uptake. The term water consumption in industrial activities refers to the difference between the water that is taken from a source (directly from a water body or sourced by the water supply) and the amount of water that is then released either into the environment or into the sewer system after use. Losses, evaporation and water incorporated in the goods produced in a given activity are accounted for as water consumed. Industrial plants use water for many purposes including steam generation, as a raw material, in cooling systems, in air pollution abatement technologies (e.g. wet scrubbers) and in cleaning systems. The most common water outputs are waste water effluents, cooling system purges and evaporation and steam purges to release pressure.
The amount of water used and released is also determined by the product portfolio of the industrial plant. Some plants (e.g. food and drink manufacturing) require intensive equipment cleaning between production lots, which results in high water
consumption and large releases of waste water.
A manufacturing plant that requires less frequent changes of production lots would generate much lower volumes of effluent.
Water uptake refers to the gross amount of water that enters a facility in a given period. Thus, water uptake is, by definition, greater than water consumed. While water consumption is a better metric to understand the potential distortion of the water cycle by a given industrial site, it is also a metric for which data are scarce and which presents methodological challenges in terms of data collection. Water uptake is a good proxy for understanding the relevance of the sector.
Global data on water uptake per region in 2016 are presented in Figure 1.2. It shows that industry in Europe is a major consumer of water in relation to other sectors (54 %). The global average water uptake by industry is around 19 %.
According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations), industrial water uptake in Europe has, however, decreased in recent years. The overall uptake of water by industry is around 200 billion m3 per year, dominated by sea water abstraction for cooling systems, which uses around 50 billion m3 per year. Water uptake for industrial manufacturing processes (not cooling) has experienced a 40 % reduction in Europe since 1990 (from around 50 to 30 billion m3 per year). These reductions are most significant for Finland, Germany, Italy and Romania.
54
34
71
15 10 4
25 53
12
65 81
81
21 13 17 20 9 15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Europe North America South and Central
America Oceania Asia Africa
Industrial Agricultural Municipal
%
Figure 1.2 Estimated annual share of global water uptake by activity and region
Note: 'Municipal' refers to water not used by industrial activities or agriculture (mainly households, services and commerce).
Source: FAO, 2016.
1.4 European policy landscape for industrial waste waters
The release of industrial waste water is regulated in Europe both directly as part of the environment law on industry and indirectly by the EU policies that tackle water issues horizontally.
Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC), specific directives regulate aspects that will influence industrial waste water generation and management. The most relevant are the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD, 91/271/EEC), the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC).
Industry's direct or indirect releases of pollution to the environment are among the key aspects regulated by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED, 2010/75/EU).
All these instruments combined constitute the main mechanism for protection regarding industrial waste water and each regulates a specific element of the various pathways in which industrial waste water can be released. These specific elements are described in this report, and Figure 1.3 is a simplified illustration of the interactions between the compliance points of the three directives.
Water Framework Directive
EU water policy is established, at an overarching level, by the WFD, which establishes a series of mechanisms for the protection of inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater. It aims to ensure that all aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands meet 'good ecological status' and 'good chemical status', and sets ambitious deadlines for this. The first deadline for good status was 2015, although a large proportion of the water bodies across Europe failed to achieve this for a number of reasons.
The ecological status is defined as a function of the quality of the biological community, the hydrological characteristics and the chemical characteristics.
The biological community that would be expected in conditions of minimal anthropogenic impact is ultimately the desired status for all water bodies.
Good chemical status is also a concept used in the WFD and is defined as compliance with all the quality standards established for chemical substances at EU level.
Under the WFD, Member States are required to
develop a set of cost-effective measures summarised in comprehensive river basin management plans (RBMPs) that are updated every 6 years.
RBMPs are a key element of the WFD and provide details of how Member States plan to improve, protect and sustainably manage their river basin districts. As part of this process, countries are required to identify key pressures on each of the 110 river basin districts across Europe. These plans contain measures for industrial waste waters where necessary. More information can be found in the report European waters: assessment of status and pressures (EEA, 2018d).
Industrial Emissions Directive
The IED takes an integrated approach to industrial emissions, regulating the whole environmental performance of an industrial plant. This includes emissions to air, water and land, generation of waste, use of raw materials, energy efficiency, noise, prevention of accidents and restoration of the site upon closure. Currently, the IED regulates 31 industrial sectors and over 50 000 installations in Europe.
All installations are required to operate according Figure 1.3 Compliance points for the three key
directive protecting the environment from environmental pressures to water
Indirect releases
Urban releases
Direct release
compliance pointIED UWWTD compliance point
compliance pointWFD
Source: EEA.
14
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
to a permit issued by the relevant Member Stateauthorities. All permit conditions must be based on the environmental protection level that is expected for the approach known as best available techniques (BAT). In particular, the associated emission levels that can be achieved when operating a BAT (hereafter referred to as BAT-AELs) are used to specify emission limit values for the installations regulated by this piece of EU law.
The IED distinguishes between 'direct' and 'indirect' releases to the environment — the latter occurring after separate treatment; typically off-site, by a third party. The issue of ‘indirect release’ mostly impacts water discharges, rather than air. In recognition of the prevalence of off-site waste water treatment, Article 15(1) of the IED allows competent authorities to take account of a downstream waste water treatment plant when setting limit values for an installation i.e.
setting laxer emission limits than for direct releases, as long as specified safeguards are met (3). This has been highlighted as a particularly complicated area of IED implementation with a potential for sub-optimal environmental outcomes (4).
In certain BREFs, BAT-AELs are specified only for direct releases to water bodies, although newer BREFs more systematically specify levels for indirect releases since
some pollutants are not remediated by conventional UWWTPs. Limit values set in permits for direct releases of certain substances are usually stricter than those for indirect releases. For some substances, this may aim to ensure that pollution levels in the effluent will not damage the sewer system or diminish the UWWTP performance.
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
The main instrument regulating the operation of UWWTPs at an EU level is the UWWTD. The Directive was introduced in 1991 and its main objective is to protect the environment from the adverse impacts of waste water discharges from urban areas and the food processing industry and from other industrial discharges into urban waste water collection systems.
It regulates the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water and sets the following key requirements:
• collection and treatment in all agglomerations (a technical concept to classify urban settlements) of more than 2 000 population equivalent (p.e.);
• secondary treatment in all agglomerations of more than 2 000 p.e.;
Box 1.1 Evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD, 91/271/EEC) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC)
Since the introduction of the UWWTD in 1991, a number of changes have occurred regarding the environment: increased and new pressures, depletion of resources, climate change, changing socio-economic situations, technological progress and increased societal demands for cleaner waters. The legal context has also changed: new and interrelated water directives have come into force, such as the WFD and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC).
Therefore, an evaluation of the UWWTD was initiated by the European Commission (October 2017). The evaluation will consider:
• the effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, relevance, and EU added value of the UWWTD by analysing its requirements and implementation in the last 25 years;
• whether the Directive has achieved its objectives: is it addressing key environmental principles?; to what extent are pollutant limits still valid?; to what extent does the Directive encourage/facilitate innovation and adaptation?
• whether there are barriers to its implementation.
The evaluation of the UWWTD is planned to be completed in 2019, and will be closely coordinated with the planned fitness check of the performance of the WFD and the Floods Directive.
The fitness check for the WFD and its daughter directives (Groundwater Directive, 2006/118/EC and Environmental Quality Standards Directive, 2008/105/EC) was also launched in October 2017. It is planned to be completed in 2019 as well.
Source: EC, 2017c.
(3) An equivalent level of protection of the environment as a whole must be guaranteed and there must be no higher levels of pollution in the environment.
(4) See Berlin Workshop report https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/06f33a94-9829-4eee-b187-21bb783a0fbf/library/56767bcd-4958-4e36-9b24- 3690fd2723c2/details
• more stringent treatment in all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. discharging into designated sensitive areas and their catchments;
• a requirement for pre-authorisation of all discharges of urban waste water, of discharges from the
food-processing industry and of industrial discharges into urban waste water collection systems;
• monitoring of the performance of treatment plants and receiving waters; and
• controls on sewage sludge disposal and re-use, and treated waste water re-use whenever it is appropriate.
In the context of the Directive, urban waste water means domestic waste water or the mixture of domestic and industrial waste waters and run-off rain water.
Article 11 of the UWWTD requires Member States to ensure that competent authorities regulate and give prior authorisation for the discharge of
Category Description of common features Technique at UWWTPs Pollutants Example industrial sectors Minimal
contamination (can be landspread)
Waste water contains no pollutant that could harm an agricultural crop.
Some nutrients (nitrogen compounds, phosphorus or potassium) can be present but these are useful for plant development. Levels of biocides or toxic substances should be very low.
No new/specific technology required, beyond secondary treatment.
Nutrients: nitrogen,
phosphorus Food and drink
Equivalent to domestic-type effluents
Waste water streams with similar, mainly organic, pollutant content to municipal waste water.
UWWTPs do not need major changes in their assets.
Degradable organic
matter Food and drink
Low flow and non-domestic- type pollutants at low
concentrations
Waste water contains small concentrations of other pollutants not present in urban effluents. The incoming load to UWWTPs may have a similar composition to municipal waste water due to dilution.
No major investment required: more frequent inlet effluent monitoring.
May require a buffer (e.g. tank/basin).
Different from common pollutants:
e.g. pesticides, hormones, nano-plastics or endocrine disrupters.
Chemicals
Metals Waste water from metal processing, iron and steel plants or other industries containing metals and metalloids.
Sedimentation,
flotation, microfiltration, electrocoagulation
Metals Metal
processing and mineral industry High nutrient
loading Waste water containing high nitrogen compounds, phosphates or substances that contribute to eutrophication. Higher inorganic content (i.e. higher conductivity).
Nitrification-
denitrification, chemical precipitation
Substances increasing eutrophication
Chemicals:
fertilisers
Effluent streams requiring pH adjustment
Waste water streams with very high
or very low pH. Initial neutralisation step to reduce corrosion in the UWWTP.
Acids or alkalis Chemicals and mineral industry
Persistent organics content
Waste water contains not easily degradable organics such as persistent (xenobiotic) hydrocarbons or bioaccumulative organic toxic substances.
Specific and complex treatment technologies required (e.g. ozonation)
Persistent organics Textiles and chemicals
Emerging
substances Waste water contains new pollutants or has characteristics that are not currently monitored (because of high cost, high complexity or no legal obligations).
New monitoring methods and
subsequent treatments techniques
New parameters and compounds not frequently measured, e.g. antibiotics
Pharmaceuticals Table 1.1 Industrial waste water types and their treatment requirements
Source: Author's compilation.
16
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
industrial waste water into collecting systems andUWWTPs. Such authorisations must ensure that industrial waste water entering the collecting systems and/or the treatment plants is pre-treated, where necessary, so that the functioning of the plant and the collecting system is not hindered and, thus, that discharges from the plants do not adversely affect the environment. However, the requirements of Article 11 are relatively general and the specific interpretation of how to meet the requirements of this article are defined separately in each Member State.
The UWWTD also aims to control the sludge
generated in the treatment operations, and to ensure that it can be safely disposed of and, if possible, used in certain applications (e.g. agriculture).
1.5 Types of industrial waste water
Industrial waste water is a complex area and it cannot be simply characterised. Different industrial activities generate very different types and quantities of effluents. This section identifies a set of waste water categories and illustrates the key aspects to consider from an environmental point of view.
Typical domestic waste water contains, primarily, organic content. Organic content can be measured with several accepted metrics, namely total
organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD) or biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). In addition to that, urban waste waters contain nitrogen and phosphorus (the majority as part of the organic matter) and dissolved salts (mostly chlorides).
Industrial effluents, in contrast, are much more varied.
Some industrial effluents are similar to a typical urban effluent, but generally the concentration levels and the substances present in industrial waste waters are different from those of urban waste water.
The main industrial waste water types are presented in Table 1.1 and are based on the characteristics of the waste water from different industrial activities.
Some effluents from industrial activities (mainly food and drink) can be spread on land as a source of
nutrients. Certain water effluent streams from industry are relatively easily handled by UWWTPs (such as those from slaughterhouses), as they mainly contain organic loads. There are other industrial effluents (e.g. containing metals or recalcitrant chemicals) that may have a significant impact on the environment and would require on-site specific (not conventional) treatments if transferred to an UWWTP.
1.6 Key water pollutants and their significance
This report identifies key substance groups and individual substances on the basis of the available data. This means that those substances that are not currently subject to reporting, essentially those outside the scope of the E-PRTR, are not considered.
Section 2.2.4, however, aims to identify emerging issues that were not analysed due to the use of this criterion.
For the purposes of the assessment in Chapter 2, substances are grouped into the following four categories:
• inorganic substances;
• chlorinated organic substances;
• other anthropogenic substances;
• heavy metals.
Pesticides are a common component of urban waste water because of their use in gardens and parks and for weed control on roads and railways (EC, 2001) and therefore are transported by the runoff of rainwater.
Direct and indirect releases of pesticides are reported by very few industrial facilities. While releases
of pesticides are a more common component of UWWTP releases, they are excluded from the specific analytical elements of this report as they do not, in general, originate from industrial sources.
Table 1.2 summarises the substances considered in each group and their main impacts on human health and the quality of the water environment.
Pollutant
group Inorganic substances Chlorinated organic
substances Other organic substances Heavy metals Substances
considered in this report
Chlorides Cyanides Fluorides
Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
Brominated diphenylethers Chloro-alkanes
Dichloromethane Dioxins and furans Halogenated organic compounds
Hexabromobiphenyl Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Tetrachloroethylene Tetrachloromethane Trichlorobenzenes Trichloroethylene Trichloromethane Polychlorinated biphenyls Pentachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol Vinyl chloride 1,2-dichloroethane
Anthracene Benzene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Di-(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
Ethyl benzene Ethylene oxide Fluoranthene Naphthalene Nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates Octylphenols and octylphenol ethoxylates Organotin compounds Phenols
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Toluene
Xylenes
Arsenic and compounds Cadmium and compounds Chromium and compounds Copper and compounds Lead and compounds Mercury and compounds Nickel and compounds Zinc and compounds
Associated health impacts in humans
Chlorides are generally not toxic to humans except in the special case of impaired sodium chloride metabolism in which congestive heart failure may occur. High nitrate concentrations can cause methemoglobinemia in infants.
Some of these
substances are known or suspected carcinogens (e.g. dichloromethane) while others (e.g.
chloro-alkanes) can impact on human organs such as the kidneys, liver and thyroid gland.
This is a very broad range of compounds and their impacts on human health are varied. Some (such as benzene) are carcinogenic while others (e.g. PAHs) are known to result in birth defects. Some of these compounds can also be involved in the atmospheric reactions that generate ground-level ozone, an air pollutant that can have significant human health impacts.
Heavy metals have a range of potential impacts on humans, with a number of them being carcinogens.
Short-term impacts can also include damage to the kidneys and liver, as well as impacting on brain development in children.
Impact on the water environment
Chlorides may impact freshwater organisms and plants by altering reproduction rates, increasing species mortality, and changing the characteristics of the entire local ecosystem.
High nitrate concentrations can cause eutrophication, increased plant growth, problem algal blooms, loss of life in bottom water and an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms present in the water.
A number of these substances are known to impact on the growth and reproduction of aquatic animals. Some of these compounds can also accumulate in aquatic animals, presenting problems throughout the food chain. They can also cause oxygen depletion in water, negatively impacting the health of relevant species.
As with human health impacts, the impacts on the water environment of this broad group of pollutants is varied. For example, some organotin compounds are very toxic to algae, molluscs, crustaceans and fish, and have also been identified as endocrine disruptors.
Some of these compounds can also bioaccumulate in marine animals, resulting in potential impacts throughout the food chain.
Heavy metals are of particular concern in the aquatic environment due to their toxicity and persistence.
A number of these metals are also defined as priority substances under the WFD.
Sources: Author's compilation based on data from EEA (2016a) and WHO (2006).
Table 1.2 Impact of different pollutant groups on human health and the water environment
18
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment 1.7 Industrial sites and treatment
infrastructure
In 2016, more than 34 000 facilities reported data to the E-PRTR. However, as discussed later in Section 2.2 only a relatively small fraction of them reported emissions to water: around 3 600 facilities, therefore 10 %. This represents 2 500 facilities from industry and around 1 100 UWWTPs (> 100 000 p.e.) reporting emissions to water (direct and indirect releases) in 2016.
In 2016, direct releases to water were reported by 2 200 facilities, based on E-PRTR data.
Figure 1.4 shows that Germany has the most E-PRTR facilities reporting direct releases to water with a total of 350 facilities (of which 134 are industrial and 216 are waste water treatment plants). Other key contributors include France and the United Kingdom, which had around 320 reporting facilities.
The countries with the smallest number of reporting facilities included Latvia and Malta, with only two
facilities each (one industrial and one waste water treatment plant), Cyprus (two waste water treatment plants), followed by Luxembourg, Croatia, Estonia, Slovenia and Lithuania, all of which had under 10 reporting facilities.
Figure 1.5 presents an overview of UWWTPs in the EU-28, based on the data reported under the UWWTD for 2014.
In total, across the EU-28 there were 29 263 UWWTPs in operation. This is significantly higher than the number of UWWTPs reporting emissions to the E-PRTR (1 128 in 2014), as only plants with a capacity greater than 100 000 p.e. are included there. The largest number of UWWTPs was reported by Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Romania and the United Kingdom. Figure 1.5 also breaks the number of plants into the number reported within each defined capacity class. This indicates that most countries have a relatively small number of plants in the largest (greater than 100 000 p.e.) capacity class, i.e. those plants that are required to report to the E-PRTR.
However, data reported under the UWWTD also include data on the actual capacity of plants, and these have Figure 1.4 Number of E-PRTR facilities reporting emissions to water in the EU in 2016 by sector and
Member State
Note: The data above include only direct releases to water from E-PRTR facilities (industry and UWWTP).
Source: EEA, 2018b.
Energy and industry UWWTP 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Austria Belgium
Bulgaria Croatia
Cyprus Czechia
Denmark Estonia
Finland France
Germany Greece
Hungary Ireland
Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg
Malta Netherlands
Poland Portugal
Romania Slovakia
Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom
been used in Figure 1.6 to show the available treatment capacity within each capacity class. This clearly shows that, although there is a relatively small number of plants greater than 100 000 p.e., they provide the majority of the treatment capacity, with 63 % of the reported capacity being provided by these plants. This suggests that E-PRTR data do cover a substantial part of UWWTP emissions across Europe.
If the E-PRTR reporting threshold was reduced to 10 000 p.e. instead of 100 000 p.e., then the E-PRTR would capture emissions from 93 % of the available UWWTP capacity.
However, there is one significant caveat in relation to the coverage of UWWTPs by the E-PRTR and this relates to the number of treatment plants reported to be in operation according to the UWWTD compared with the number of plants reported to the E-PRTR. For 2014, the total number of UWWTPs reported to the E-PRTR was 1 128. The UWWTD reporting data from 2014 indicate that there are more than 1 600 plants with a capacity above 100 000 p.e. It would be expected that
all plants above 100 000 p.e. would generate pollutant releases above the pollutant thresholds in Annex II of the E-PRTR regulations, hence the reason for the discrepancy between the UWWTD and E-PRTR data sets is unclear.
This discrepancy has been identified by the EEA and is being addressed through additional quality control checks on reported E-PRTR data from Member States.
Industrial waste water often presents physicochemical characteristics that require treatment before their release to the environment or the sewer system. For those cases, industrial operators can choose between treatment on site but also off site in an independently operated waste water treatment plant (IOWWTP).
IOWWTPs are normally plants dedicated to the treatment of industrial waste water that serve several installations located in proximity to each other. For certain industrial waste water effluents this can be a more efficient option compared with treatment on site, as economies of scale and synergies between waste water types can be exploited. However, according to the reported data in the E-PRTR, IOWWTPs are not common in Europe (the largest number of IOWWTPs
< 2 000 p.e. 2 000-10 000 p.e. 10 001-100 000 p.e. > 100 000 p.e. No data 0
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000
Figure 1.5 Number of UWWTPs in 2014 by Member State and capacity class
Source: EEA, 2016b.
20
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
according to the E-PRTR are in Italy — 11 facilities,followed by Poland and France with 10 facilities each and Germany with six). IOWWTPs with a capacity greater than 10 000 m3 per day are captured under the E-PRTR according to Annex I of the Regulation. The E-PRTR pollutant reporting thresholds mean that only the larger plants will report emissions data. Based on the 2016 E-PRTR data, there were 42 IOWWTPs directly releasing to the environment, which represented less than 4 % of waste water treatment plant facilities reporting in the E-PRTR.
1.8 Data sources
The E-PRTR (EEA, 2018b) is the main source of data for direct and indirect releases from industrial facilities.
The E-PRTR Regulation (EU, 2006) puts a legal obligation on the European Commission and the Member States to establish a coherent, EU-wide pollutant register that can support public access to information concerning emissions from industrial activities. The E-PRTR is the largest industrial emissions database in Europe, containing data on more than 90 substances from 45 economic sectors. Industrial operators meeting certain activity and emission thresholds are responsible for collecting and reporting the data. Because of these emission reporting thresholds, emissions from sectors with larger facilities (e.g. refineries) are better represented than emissions from sectors with smaller facilities (e.g. textiles).
The best available techniques reference documents (BREFs) were also a key source of information for Figure 1.6 Total treatment capacity, by capacity class for each Member State, and total percentage
of EU capacity in each capacity class in 2014
Reported treatment capacity, p.e.
< 2 000 p.e. 2 000-10 000 p.e. 10 001-100 000 p.e. > 100 000 p.e.
% of EU reported total capacity for each capacity class
0.3 % 6.6 % 29.1 % 63.9 %
0 50 000 000 100 000 000 150 000 000 200 000 000 250 000 000
Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4
Notes: For some plants reported under the UWWTD there were no data provided for capacity or capacity class, hence these are not included in the above graph. Also, for Spain, some plants classified as greater than 100 000 p.e. capacity do not have a specific reported capacity.
Each of these plants is assumed to have a capacity equal to the average capacity of all Spanish plants greater than 100 000 p.e. that have a reported capacity.
Source: EEA (2016b).
this study. BREFs are produced by the European Commission as part of the IED implementation and are the result of an exchange of information among industry operators, regulators and non-government actors. They reflect a consensus regarding the industrial processes that achieve an ambitious level of protection of the environment, while being economically viable at an industrial scale. They also address abatement techniques, including waste water treatment operations, as well as giving information on emissions per source for each type of industrial activity.
The Water Information System for Europe (WISE;
EEA, 2018c), another key data source for this study, is a partnership between the European Commission and the EEA. It provides a web-portal entry to water- related data on inland and marine waters alongside information on EU water policies (directives, implementation reports and supporting activities), reported data sets (and their analysis in interactive maps, statistics, indicators, etc.), modelling and forecasting services across Europe, and related projects and research. WISE State of Water (SoW) also includes information on the water quality status and pressures submitted by Member States in the second reporting of RBMPs.
Finally, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Database (EEA, 2016b), containing data from the reporting of Member States as part of the UWWTD implementation (the latest data set provides information for 2014) has been used. It provides information on areas receiving waste water releases, agglomerations, identification and capacity
data on UWWTPs and their releases, links between agglomerations and UWWTPs, discharge points, and country-level information on sludge handling and treated waste water re-use.
A summary of the key data sources, with their geographical scope and limitations, is presented in Table 1.3.
1.9 General approach to the assessment
This report presents an analysis of trends and
interlinkages between emissions data and state of the environment data. Because of the complexity of the data sets and the number of parameters involved, it was necessary to aggregate the data.
To that end, the analysis implements the following steps:
1. Substances covered by the E-PRTR were grouped into the categories described in Section 1.6.
2. For each pollutant group, direct and indirect releases from industrial facilities were illustrated according to the size of direct releases and indirect releases in 2016 (expressed as mass), and the number of facilities reporting.
3. Based on the above parameters and the
completeness of the available data in the E-PRTR, heavy metals, chlorinated organic substances and other organic substances were analysed further
Data source Year Geographical scope Limitations
E-PRTR 2007-2016 EU-28, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Norway, Serbia and Switzerland
Data available for plants exceeding capacity (Annex I of E-PRTR Regulation) and pollutant thresholds (Annex II of E-PRTR Regulation) only. Incomplete data for non-EU countries.
BREF documents (a) 2005-2017 Reference plants across the EU-28 (but data are sometimes also captured from other non-EU countries)
Data collected only for plants exceeding capacity thresholds defined in the IED.
WISE SoW 2017 25 EU Member States
(EU-28 except Greece, Ireland and Lithuania)
Different assessment methods used by Member States to determine chemical status affecting status classification and comparability.
UWWTD 2008-2014
(latest data published in 2017)
EU-28, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey
Incomplete information on UWWTP capacities and loads. Incomplete data for non-EU countries.
Table 1.3 Data sources
Note: (a) http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference
22
Industrial waste water treatment – pressures on Europe's environment
in terms of their eco-toxicity. The eco-toxicity ofemissions was calculated by combining the 2016 emissions of each substance with a corresponding factor from the USEtox model (version 2.1) (5).
4. The eco-toxicity of emissions from industrial activities and UWWTPs was then compared and discussed in the context of data on the quality of EU water bodies.
5. The assessment also considers the potential impact of industrial emissions on UWWTP performance and how this relationship can be identified based on available EU-level data.
In addition, based on the findings of the assessment and the analysis of available relevant data sets, gaps in the data sets were identified that, if filled, would allow for a more complete and thorough analysis of the impacts of industrial waste water emissions on the receiving environment.
(5) At the time of writing this report version 2.1. was the latest version available, although it is expected to evolve further in the future.
Box 1.2 The USEtox model
In this report, 2016 emissions reported in the E-PRTR were multiplied by the USEtox eco-toxicity factors (endpoint eco-toxicity and the characterisation factor 'continental freshwater' for water emissions) sourced from the USEtox model v2.1. The calculated eco-toxicities for individual substances were then added together to obtain total eco-toxicity for each pollutant group and facility. The eco-toxicity results are referred to in this report as 'pressure' or 'eco-toxicity' of emissions.
However, when interpreting the results, the limitations of the applied methodology have to be considered. The USEtox eco-toxicity factors were not available for all individual pollutants for which emission data were reported in the E-PRTR. One of the main limitations of the application of the USEtox eco-toxicity factors in this study has been a lack of appropriate factors for the most common water parameters, such as total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, and emissions of inorganic substances, which constitute the largest stream of emissions (by mass) from industry and waste water treatment facilities.
Moreover, the ranking of the pollutants in terms of pressure is very different regarding the mass and the eco-toxicity. For example, the heavy metals group has the smallest emissions contribution in terms of mass; however, the pressure due to this group is very significant in term of eco-toxicity. According to the developers of the USEtox approach, it is not accurate to compare toxicity levels across different pollutant groups. Hence, the analysis is based on the assessment within each individual pollutant group.
This report analyses both direct releases to a water body and indirect releases. The latter refers to transfers of industrial waste water by one given facility to
another. In most cases, this transfer occurs via the sewer system and the receiving facility is an urban waste water treatment plant (UWWTP).
This chapter describes the characteristics of direct and indirect releases as reported under the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) and also the evidence available on the potential impacts on receiving water bodies as a result of industrial releases. The assessment of potential impact is complicated by the fact that some industrial effluents receive treatment at an UWWTP before being released to water, and thus the final potential impact of the industrial effluent can be difficult to determine.
Through analysis of available data, this chapter looks at key trends in releases in terms of mass emissions, and it also examines the eco-toxic significance of emissions of each of the pollutant groups and how this is changing over time. This chapter also examines the potential to link industrial emission data to the level of treatment applied at the UWWTP and also to the status of corresponding European water bodies.
2.1 The interface between industrial indirect releases and waste water treatment
The collection systems and UWWTPs generally form part of the public infrastructure in Europe. Their design focuses primarily on treating domestic waters and then, as far as possible, they must take into account the challenges that industrial releases present.
The main aspects in which industrial waste water may impact the collection system and the waste water treatment plants are the following:
1. Capacity issues: UWWTPs operate according to a designed influent flow and typical concentration values of specific pollutants for such water flows.
Industrial waste waters can generate an excess of flow, but this is considered to be uncommon. The fraction of the effluent mass loading to an UWWTP
originating from industry will vary significantly across UWWTPs and there can be local scenarios, e.g. an UWWTP in a highly industrialised area, which result in the majority of the influent mass loading being related to industrial emissions.
2. Integrity and operational issues: Industrial waste water can hamper the integrity of the collection system by reducing its lifespan (e.g. by corrosion, acids and alkalis) and by causing clogging of the sewer pipes. Industrial waste water can also impact the mechanical elements of the treatment plant.
In addition, industrial effluent can affect the performance of the plants by hindering their biological functioning, particularly in cases where the UWWTP was not designed to accept particular types of industrial effluent and/or where the characteristics of industrial effluents change over time. Toxicity, a higher nutrient content and a higher concentration of organic matter can induce changes in the balance of bacteria in various steps of the treatment.
3. Treatment-level issues: UWWTPs are normally designed to cope with a content of organic matter and nutrients typical of domestic effluents. The biological steps of the treatment may not be efficient in dealing with other pollutants such as heavy metals or anthropogenic organic substances, resulting in these pollutants being present in the discharge from the UWWTP or being transferred to sludge. For the UWWTP to be able to cope with effluents that differ from domestic ones, additional techniques and steps must be applied that are not always technically or economically feasible.
4. Sustainability issues: UWWTPs generate
greenhouse gases (GHGs) both directly as a result of the biological processes and indirectly as an energy-intensive installation. UWWTPs are also of relevance with regard to circular economy initiatives (e.g. sludge reuse, water reuse, energy reuse).
The generation of industrial waste water can be a factor that hampers sustainability by both
